notin

I don’t recommend contracting. But getting the Rays out of Tampa and to a city of potential Rays’ fans as opposed to retired Yankee fans might help that perennially cash-strapped organization...

WAR also gives larger defensive credit to players who have played multiple positions and potentially inflating their WAR value. I have (unsuccessfully) tried to have this process called “Zobristing”. On the one hand, I can understand the value of their versatility. But on the other hand, I don’t think I agree with the amount of WAR inflation it seems to lead to...

1. DH everywhere. Agreed. 2. No more expansion. If anything, go back to pre-division baseball and just use the best teams rather than giving a team an advantage by being in a division of low-market, constantly-tanking teams. 3. More challenges will lengthen games. And there always becomes the question of baserunner placement. For example, what if a catcher doesn’t throw at a runner moving on a 3-2 pitch because it’s called a ball. If that call gets reversed, what do you do with the baserunner? Send him back? He is legally on second, but the catcher also made the right play by not making an unnecessary throw and risking an error. 4. I’m ok with this, especially if they bring back double headers. Every team used to play two on Sundays. Maybe every team need not do this every Sunday, but there could be a lot more scheduled, which would go a long way to keeping the World Series out of November. 5. Agree except for the DL part and the 3 batter thing. While I hate the LOOGY strategy, it shouldn’t be negated by rules, but rather by strategic decisions. Also what do you do if a pitcher faces only two hitters and ends the inning? Does he have to come back and start the next inning or go on the DL? 6. Some teams do need to move, but it won’t be easy with existing lease agreements. And Boston, while a passionate fan base, might not be as big so as to support two teams. There are several untapped markets that make more sense...

I’m ok with the notion that he explained it better. I do agree with what he said. Heck, I’ve been quoting his previous posts...

Was there something there I didn’t say?

And if you believe in the human element of the game based on your experiences, you really shouldn’t believe in clutch or choke. Especially based on high school games. These guys in MLB are not the ones we played with in high school; they are a different breed entirely. They are among the best in the world at what they do and even the worst player in MLB is better at baseball than any of us are at anything (by “baseball”, in am referring to the sport in general, not MLB). They also all know it. I don’t think you can even get to MLB without levels of confidence and ego most of us cannot fathom. Whatever any of us experienced in high school and college baseball is immaterial comparatively, due to the watered down talent level from “normies”.

What about those of us who have played, coached and see the relevance of stats? Why is it you assume that it is an either/or scenario? That anyone who likes stats could not possibly have played the game? Or anyone who uses math? Do you assume this about people who compile stats, too? That the people at STATS, Inc or Fangraphs do not watch or know baseball and just use spreadsheets? Do you even know the origin of the term "sabermetrics"? Stats don't remove the human element from the game. Stats are a numerical recording of history. And WAR is a stat that attempts to encompass a player's offensive and defensive contribution into a single stats. It's a big task. It's the Manhattan Project of baseball stats. I know you like to say ou have nothing against WAR, but you only mention when in front of the words "is flawed". And saying "i not as important as you think it is" implies you know how strong we think it is." And once again, you refuse to look at alternative viewpoints. you get angry because some fans like stats as proof a concept exists. Yet somehow you think it needs exist because you say so. "Clutch" for example. Someone cites a study someone did that says it does not exist and you say it does but with no proof. Why should anyone believe you over someone with proof? I'm not saying there is no reason, but you never want to provide it. The debate eds these because you get angry your word isn't enough. Sure, you played in high school. So what? So did I. So did a lot of people on this board, and the division isn't "former players vs stat geeks;" the overlap is significant. Even at this stage of the debate, you still want to point out all the flaws of WAR. "Baseball Refernce dWAR sometimes falls behind oWAR." really? (Hint: It doesn't actually say what you said it says.) The problem with arguments like JBJ's defense is you seem to want everyone to believe it because you say so. His dWAR, his DRS and elements like that are only argument starters. not enders. Unless you have nothing else to counter with besides your personal beliefs...

It doesn’t end the debate. It starts it. For example, say you say “Betts deserves AL MVP.” And then I come back with “Jose Ramirez has better WAR.” It only ends the debate there if you quit. But ideally you were basing your nomination of Betts on some sort of data or observation. And this might be a good time to present it...

But you did start making a big deal of this so- called 17% margin of error on page 21 of this thread. Those of us who cite WAR know the inadequacies and imperfections, but also recognize that it is valuable in spite of them. You on the other hand see these imperfections as a means to negate the entire concept. One might think someone who likes defense and thinks stats place too much emphasis on offense might spend less time disparaging the one stat that takes defense into account with offense...

You are looking way too deep into that example. The writer of the article was merely pointing out that WAR is inexact, not that it had a +/- 1.0 tolerance. You did do math, but no math was needed there. The entire point of the sentence was NOT to establish the range, but to point out that it’s an estimation and not a definitive value. WAR is an abstract and unprovable concept. So how could they establish a range and cite a 17% margin of error?

Which is the opposite of many traditional stats. For example, a pitcher with a 2.78 ERA is usually thought to be better than a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA. But the difference is those numbers equates to 5 earned runs over 200 innings. Is that really a big difference?

Nope. But I never saw the harm in giving Machado a chance. But then as Dombrowski was the guy who brought Machado to Detroit, I presume he knows a lot more about him than me, knew he was on waivers, and passed on him anyway. So it’s not like I could be too upset by it...

But getting him on a minor league deal could certainly solve a lot of that. The Sox do have good pitching depth, but don’t you think Clay could have given the Sox more than Jalen Beeks did?

Agreed. I could be dazzled to like a trade for him, but I doubt it happens...

But the other team wanted Devers. Do we still make that trade?

The article says “WAR is not meant to be a perfectly precise indicator of a players’s contribution but rather an estimate of their value to date” and goes on to say “a 6.0 WAR player might be worth 5.0 to 7.0 WAR, but it is pretty safe to say they are at least an all star level player and potentially an MVP.” That’s not the same as saying it has a 17% margin of error.

That's because those people would be stupid to look at WAR that way. In fact, simply saying the player with 4.5 fWAR is having the best season would be the simplest and probably most common and maybe even most correct way to look at it. This 17% tolerance appears to be your creation. The article you cited says a 6 fWAR player might be between 5 WAR and 7 WAR, but that doesn't mean they are even defining a range or a tolerance as much as they are trying to make a point, which is that it isn't anything specific. A big part of this is it isn't measuring anything, which really makes the notion hat it has a tolerance as useless. Now if I asked you today who was the MVP of the A's, who would you say? If you are "most people", you probably say Khris Davis. ESPN says so. Certainly an argument can be made for Davis, but my point is that Chapman deserves a look, and might be the better candidate, which is one of the values WAR provides...

I would say that leading in WAR does help Ramirez' case. Definitely. However, at the end of the season, he may not still be leading Betts. And the "most people" who vote are the BBWAA, and they as a collection appear to have varying degrees of acceptance of WAR. But there will be those who say it is too close to be a factor and those who ignore it completely in favor of traditional stats. In fact, I would not be surprised if more votes go to Khris Davis and his 2.6 fWAR over Matt Chapman and his 5.4 fWAR, simply because Davis got hot at the right time and could easily be the AL home run leader. But WAR at least puts Chapman into the argument, which a lot of the traditional stats do not necessarily do. And if you like to argue this is a game played by human beings and not by statistics, WAR does a much better job of making that the case than simply looking at who leads the league in home runs. After all, what else is putting Chapman into the argument?

I know. It's crazy how I thought of both of them as pitchers making MLB minimum wage. And which of Brian Johnson's 10 career starts established his stability, consistency and durability? We have at best a small sample size here. I think a lot of people are enamored by how he has pitched a a rookie, but he is not a young rookie. He's 10 months younger than Eovaldi, who will be a free agent after this season. Johnson overcame a lot through his long minor league career, but to simply throw accolades at him while disregarding while slamming Buchholz doesn't say much beyond sour grapes. If Buchholz' career started in another uniform and came here on a minor league deal to pitch like he has, would people be so quick to disparage him? We certainly liked Rich Hill when he was here, and his career was more of a mess than Clay's before he came to Boston...

There are a few reasons to maintain spending, regardless of the lack of cap. Two primary ones are to void paying too much money for players as they age beyond usefulness, and also to avoid penalties for drafting. Sometimes, the "right talent" won't be the right talent long enough to justify that...

Stay he course with the Pats. Sure, their run is going to end and it will probably be ugly, but true fans root for their team during those down times.

So your nightmare trade would be Devers for Buchholz...

There is no "margin of error". WAR is, was, and always meant to be an approximation, not a definitive value. That doesn't mean it isn't useful; it just means it isn't absolute. Is that really a flaw? That's like saying meteorology is flawed. I have heard the weatherman say "50% chance of rain." Well, it's either going to rain or it isn't. Should we disregard that entire field of science based on the weatherman being off by a full 50%? WAR tries to take the unimaginable task of attempting to determine the overall contribution of a player. It hs many flaws. It uses a floating reference of a replacement player. It's projections into the future are pretty laughable. But the value of WAR doesn't and wasn't meant to directly translate to wins. But it does give some overall perspective of the value of one player as opposed to many other players many of us rarely if ever get to watch. It's a tough concept to grasp because it isn't a concrete value like batting average. But then batting average is actually a pretty useless stat if you think about it. I mean, the definition of a "hit" is hardly universal. A player robbed of a home run doesn't get one, while the player who beats out the weak grounder does. but who was clearly the better hitter? Not to mention, all the players in MLB always fall into what is actually a very tight range. A .280 hitter, whom most fans think is good, only gets 4 more hits per 100 at-bats than a .240 hitter. That's maybe one hit per week. Why is the .280 hitter so revered over the .240 hitter? Especially when practically every player in the entire league will hit between .200 and .300. That small 10% range of success is so magnified by fans and sportswriters as if the differences are really of major significance. But as batting average is a very simple concept, people grasp it and it is and will likely continue to be the most cited of all offensive statistics. And even I will continue to cite it as required, for those very reasons. WAR has a few flaws, the least of which is the range. Like any value with a tolerance, the nominal value is the ideal one. For players too close within that range (which is never disclosed in the article you read, but only given as an example), it doesn't end the debate of who is better. It just adds fuel to it. You claim it doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, but, really it does. For example. Khris Davis is on a home run tear and becoming a player some feel is a legitimate MVP candidate himself. But WAR says he is the fourth most significant position player on his team, behind Matt Chapman, Jed Lowrie and Marcus Semien. Whether he is really fourth or not, doesn't WAR tell you maybe his contributions beyond the home runs might not be so great? And maybe there is a better MVP candidate on that team? And looking overall at the AL, is Jose Ramirez having a better season than Mookie? As of today, WAR says he is (8.2 fWAR vs 7.7 fWAR). That doesn't guarantee him the MVP, but it certainly helps his case. And like in Oaklamd, it is just a little bit of fuel for the debate...

The sequel could be very bad. Where an aging Air Bud gets injured and the Angels have to put him down. Sort of like what they want to do with Pujols...

Would their bats be double-barreled, reminiscent of Darth Maul's light saber?